Sexually Assaulting Women At Gaming Conventions Is NOT Ok

Last month we heard an account of sexual assault at a party hosted by Mojang's, Markus 'Notch' Persson. Yesterday, a video surfaced that depicts YouTube user KSIOlajidebt attending the Eurogamer Expo while making fun of cosplayers, asking inappropriate questions to passers by, and sexually assaulting booth babes.
(Culture, Eurogamer Expo)

Update
Video embed removed by mod. If you want to see a guy rub his face in a woman's breasts and similar lewd content, go ahead and click through. We don't think it's appropriate for N4G nor do we think it's an appropriate way to treat women.

A microphone between breasts isn't traditionally the kind of "sticking" constituted as assault.

It's inappropriate and completely disrespectful of the women. Yes. But he should be removed from the grounds, not charged with assault. If he repeats it, it's a violation of privacy and public misbehavior; however, still not assault.

Nothing wrong with the video... He is just trying to be ultra awkward he is not holding anybody down and forcing them to continue talking to him!

The reported is seriously over reacting... "A few moments later he asks another booth babe if he can 'motorboat' her (the act of forcefully shoving one's face between a woman's breasts)"

I sure hope the reporter doesn't motorboat anyone because he is confused as to what it is... he asked her, she said yes, he shoved his face in them and they both enjoyed it where is the assault in that? I wouldn't even call it harassment! He was just being cocky confident and a bit of a clown!

The main problem is that we are trying to put a level of danger on the matter. Which isn't the main issue, it the fact that he views them as mindless bodies. Primarily fit for his own sexual entertainment.

Another issue I stated in another comment, is that the fact that some of these women where used for their body as an attraction didn't help them at all. Instead it only provokes the actions of a person like this.

The world of men has created the ideal of who and what the woman is. If she steps out of line then she is seen as abnormal or an outcast in some way or another.

If a man comes up to you and asks your permission to put his face in between your breasts, and you say "yes". Who am I to say that he can't do it? It doesn't matter whether I think it's appropriate or not. They are your breasts, not mine, its your right to let whomever you want stick his face in between them.

Whoever wrote the source article is messing up her game. I don't mean "video game"; I mean her pimp-game, her rap, her mack, or whatever slang term you use to describe the process of attracting and pulling in the opposite sex for courtship. He needs to get his own game and stop hating on hers.

She might have liked the guy, after all, she did let him stick his face in her breasts. She may have given him her number. She might have been hoping that he would call her. Maybe she did, maybe she didn't, but now he probably won't whether she wanted him to or not. When people start accusing you of sexual assualt, they are talking about serious jail-time; that's more than enough to scare him off.

Saying that this girl was assaulted when he "motorboated" her after she gave permission is to say that she doesn't have right to control who does and who does not touch her body.

You are saying that it is not enough for the both of them to want it, you have to want it. You are wrong on this one.

In reality you are trampling on her rights more than this guy in the video.

You don't know if he asked the other woman if he could stick his mic between her breasts or not. They only showed the clip of him doing it. They don't show them talking before-hand. However, we do know she didn't object once he did it.

Like most of them were with it... lol comedy from this guy that isn't afraid of nothing.

site wise, just another day of people on the internet caring about things that they would not have cared about , unless someone was making a big deal of it >>>internet conformity .... just another day of it<<<

just a typical guy being a douche in a sense, I have seen worse in clubs bad pickup lines but its alright. someones gonna beat him up tho and apparently this is what this guy does in 10+ videos so why is there a problem now?

Guys a total douche (and about as funny as an Orphan with polio), but those are BOOTH BABES. As in, women who willfully accepted the job knowing that they were going to be sexualized.

I mean Jesus Christ, people. I'm not trying to say that women DESERVE to be sexually harassed, but I feel like if you walk like a duck and quack like a duck....then just accept that you are going to confuse a few people when you don't want to be treated like a duck.

Not that those women were getting offended anyway, as they have clearly tweeted.

@kriauciuniux - Yes because most sex crimes surround women assaulting men, right? I wasn't aware that I've been living in a world where men are usually opressed, have less power and money than women and are also physically weaker than women.

Are you really that stupid or are you just trying really hard right now?

@Bimkoblerutso : Even strippers tend to have no-touch policies. People can consent to one thing and not to another. (Of course, if she said yes beforehand, as she apparently did, then I agree that it's totally okay.)

lol ah the trashy British press, always the alarmists, and the under-sexed losers that are gamers and the gaming press conglomerating to turn a big pile of nothing into the biggest thing that's ever happened.
As has been discussed already, there was no assault. All physical contact was either consensual or not convincing to any judge that an actual assault occured. It was just lewd harrassment, and the guy does deserve to get kicked out, but really, the over-reaction just makes people look like over protective under sexed losers. They are adults, not children. They aren't going to be scarred for life because some nit wit gestured them inappropriately. And the idea of booth babes will never go away. As long as there are men looking for products, there will be hot girls standing around attracting men to products. Men are visual creatures, and at no point will that change where we ban hot girls at events. What are we women?

I actually know that first girl (shel also appears at the end) and she said she didn't know and she thought it was going to be a serious interview? Her boyfriend was out of shot behind the camera, she definitely did not appreciate what happened

Yeah, you're right. And I don't want to seem like I'm trying to justify what the dude did. He's an obnoxious prick.

But at the same time, I hate when people expect me to "respect" the women that are attempting to exploit the male libido for monetary gain in the first place. Do they deserve to be harassed? Absolutely not. But don't try to suggest that I should RESPECT these women, either.

The guy didn't sexually assault anyone, he was just an extremely huge prick towards people and think it's funny to do this even though TV networks who do this have to get permission to show the people but any prick with a video camera can walk around and upload it to YouTube.

People are wrong if they think sexual harrasment isn't covered by the term sexual assault (Check a dictionary before you disagree with that), but on the other side, there is no way this would be judicially defined as sexual assault, so it is still to crude a term to apply to this situation.

Regardless of terminology, the fact that it is being done is not good.

I was also thinking why are the women there in the first place? The purpose of showing their bodies as attraction sites doesn't help their situation of how men look at them. One might even say "they are just asking for it to happen". This isn't the case, as it more like men created this situation to happen for the befitting of themselves.

If we limit the actuality of things based on literacy meaning alone then we are just being passive to the truth that is shown here.

Edit:

To simplify my meaning, a man kills another man in the city. He is deemed a murderer.

A man in the military kills another man in another country, he is deemed a hero.

Social attachments do not change the fact of what is, and that is that both men killed another man.

@rezzah I've never argued that what is being done here is good. My comment was all about terminology, and I don't think my comment in any ways mitigates the situation. I just said that the situation is not violent and not "mean spirited" enough in a way, to be judged as sexual assault by a court of law. Of that reason I think the term is to crude.

To adress your (somewhat unrelated) points, I think your murderer/hero analogy is unsophisticated and does not reflect reality. Someone is called a hero, if they believe that the kill was somehow preventive. If you're at war, then that in itself is supposed to constitute preventive killings. (ex. you kill someone, so they can't kill someone else)

There is a huge moral difference between killing Osama bin Laden and a new-born baby, for instance, as there is good reason to suspect that bin Lade would be more detrimental to human well being than the baby.

And regarding this situation, I think if women want jobs as booth babes, that is their choice. I personally wouldn't be to pleased if I had a daughter who went for the profession, but as long as nothing's forcing her, it would ultimately be all right.

Sorry about the unrelated topic, but I automatically start looking about the primary source of the issue. Not just the argument between two people or the visual issues above the surface.

I was trying to aim for the beginning of it all.

The effect of a booth babe is the sexual attraction to the body of the woman who stands by the product. That attraction is meant for men, who are sexually aroused through visuals. I understand why you wouldn't want your possible daughter to be in this situation. Because as men we know the purpose of women in these situations. It removes their minds and presents the body, it dehumanizes them. Regardless of choice this is the effect. And power of oppression is not through intent but for effect.

We normalize the situations of these women in areas they head off to in life, even they see these choices as normal. But what is normal or to normalize something is to give it power. That power holds us in place to avoid swaying out of the norm. To be normal is to not be abnormal or an outcast.

Who says what is and isn't normal? Why do we allow it? Why would women wish to present themselves as sexual dolls? Who wishes for women to be presented as sexual dolls? I'm giving these questions to point to the fact that it is men who holds the power of normalizing the world in their own ideals. We socially stand above women, whether we want to or not, as the ones who oppress them. we give them their options of what is normal.

So if a woman normalizes the choice of being a booth babe, it means she has agreed to the ideals that men have given her. So does this make the actuality of booth babes okay? No, as women are presented with the ideals of men who have normalized these life choices into modern society.

Men formed the ideal world for women, she accepts or becomes abnormal, and thus the affect of oppressing.

Just thought I'd throw this out there, but have you also considered the fact that women know they have the ability to exploit men with their bodies?

Despite of what you may think of this or the common use of women today. There are some out there who enjoy the thrill of watching men drool for them. Heck, there are women who know they can score a high paid job with the advantage of looking sexy. If it's worth it, they'll go for this opportunity.

Either this guy got lucky and only spoke to 'nice' people or he edited out any situations where things didn't go quite so well for him. I'd like to see him get clever with someone like Jimmy Carr (I don't really like Carr's comedy but he does deal with hecklers pretty well)

It is sexual harassment but on a passive scale. This is why people are conflicted with views of "yes" and "no".

If he openly felt a girl up then we'd all say "yes" because it would be blatant.

His questions made some or most of the women feel uncomfortable (not the motorboat chick), they reflected his thoughts onto women by mimicking the idea of objectifying them in his mind. This is seen through his sexual questions towards them, also there being no other questions about anything else except their bodies.

This is a another case of oppression, even though we all are oppressed in some way, but those lesser in stance stance will feel the effects more.

Of course if all of these women did not feel uncomfortable and or enjoyed his questions then the work of the oppressors would have been completed. meaning that these woman would have submitted to the ideals of men, the paradigm.

Saw the vid, and the 1st so called sex assault wasn't true. She gave him permission. look at 0:09-0:19, If she didn't want him to she would have shoved him away, which obviously she didn't do, she jiggled his face in those boobs then ask "How was that", so how is that assault if she gleefully consented?

But the last girl, was debatable at 2:32 cuz she didn't exactly give him permission to place his mic on her breast but again she didn't react, get angry or say nothing except giggle afterwards. So how that assault?

Sexual assault claim is FALSE!!!!!

Was is lewd, rude and ill mannered toward booth-babes & geeks? yeah probably, but wasn't that the point of his TYPE of interviews?

Look at all the legal scholars here! What are you people doing online?! Get back to your law offices!

There are a lot of things here that aren't being considered. Such as the fact that these girls had a camera shoved in their faces, which could act as a bit of coercion, which affects consent that everyone is so eager to point out.

The motorboating issue - he asked her, she agreed to do it. The fact that he asked in the first place...how many other people did he ask before he got someone to agree to it? How many people said no or were repulsed by his behaviour? The footage is edited, obviously, to show the people who agreed to his lewd antics. There were a few people in the video that he didn't edit out that looked visibly uncomfortable. Just because you're laughing at something, it doesn't always mean that you find it funny. It could be a nervous laugh, such as it appeared to be with the woman he asked about fingering herself.

Incidentally, if you touch someone without their consent, it's considered assault. If you touch someone and it is considered to be sexual, such as touching their breasts, it's sexual assault. Was this sexual assault? Well we'd have to know if they really had agreed to it, or were coerced.

Well he did ask permission off camera, which is standard procedure. I am sure that if you attempt to pursue action against KSI for sexually assaulting women (even though permission was asked) and using his video on your site. This guy could get sued for libel. Also lets not all jump on the bandwagon for LETS GET HIM, as one quick article was written without the proper context or permission. Does someone sue Two and a Half men for mistreatment of women? No. Because permission was asked.

What!? Since when!? ...Seriously, if people didn't already know this, (and for those that HAVE done it). You need to be slapped upside the face and learn some damn manners. I don't care if it's a guy doing it to a woman, or a woman doing it to a guy. Have some freaking decency and respect, if there's any of that left these days.

That's a very limited definition of assault, and might actually be more damaging than helpful. By labeling women as only being capable of being assaulted, it seemingly makes women appear less than men (as if they're weaker) and ignores acts of assault of men against men.

But I definitely agree he should be banned from future events. Acting like that promotes nothing but negative press for our industry, and it really shows how easily people can abuse privilege.

I'm sorry but your statement is ridiclous. Men and women can both be sexually assaulted, and I have no clue why you say men can't be sexually assaulted. It simply is one-sided and sexist, from the women's perspective.

Look every now and then I walk into a club and some random grabs my backside. I turn around and I find out who did it get the number no matter what as a just in case I don't find the ONE tonite. I mean... should I run to the police. If a girl when I was a kid grabs my penis and runs laughing should I not kiss her behind the portables at recess. Grow up people it goes both ways and for the record women love sex and being innappropriate with THE RIGHT PERSON more than men. Believe it.

Hey -Mika- have you ever heard of auto-erotic asphyxiation? It's where a guy is choked to the point of climaxing and is what killed David Carradine? Have you heard about what happened to men when they were hanged from the gallows? I'm not going to post it here but look it up. Suffice it to say that all a woman has to do is choke a man and she can rape him. So don't try to say that men can't be sexually assaulted.

@ToddAkin: Did you just say sexual assault is ok when it's legitimate sexual assault? So basically if a girl says "yeah, you can motorboat and finger me while holding me down" that's not ok but if she says "i don't like it when you try to shove your dirty fingers inside me" that's ok?

I don't consider it sexual assault. Sexual harassment, indeed. Looks to be blown out of proportion though.This guy was trying to be funny and failed miserably. Smoke some of my product and watch him again. I bet he still won't be funny.

But even if you did wear short shorts or tight clothing, that doesn't mean you're "asking" to be sexually assaulted.

It's silly to assume that people (women or men) who dress in scantily-clad outfits are inviting or asking for assault. It puts the blame on the victim, and implies that the assaulter is some sort of dumb animal who can't control their impulses because the victim "invited" them by wearing a certain outfit. When really, anyone should be able to wear whatever they want without being assaulted or told they're "asking" to be assaulted.

He obviously wasnt trying to pull her aside to do anything inappropriate.. Some girls love having their tits hanging out their shirts but get pissed when ppl look. I didnt see any sexual assaults happening

It's hard to think "sexual assault" after he was allowed to motorboat ole girl's chest. Was he a dick? Yep. Was he in any place to say people looked like Muppets? Not with that busted Mr. T faux hawk. Being rude or introducing someone with massive tits as Massive Tits ain't sexual assault. It's decency assault.

Felt sorry for the guy in the armor, he was just out to have a good time. Best way to deal with idiots like that (the guy with the mic and stupid hair) is just to headbutt them, people don't usually expect it and its harder to read than a punch. Use your forehead and aim for the nose.

Yea, I admit when I saw the chick with the Tapout shirt, I was getting a little excited. Yes, this guy's a fuckhead tosser, deserves a beating. Did he commit sexual assault? Nope. Ban him from the next convention, but otherwise don't say he deserves to go to jail or anything, cause he doesn't.

It's not sexual assault, just wildly inappropriate. The guy obviously has to pull the media card to get any type of action. I love a good motorboat as much as the next guy, but there is a time and a place. That wasn't one of them.

WTF? that's fucked up, someone should sue his ass, get him arrested, no apology could make up for it, what a fucken idiot, gross, i tell ya if that happened where i come from, he'd be gone like a magic trick.